Our results confirm the positive association between traffic noise and adiposity that have been previously shown by number of studies (Cai et al., 2020; Christensen et al., 2016, 2015; Foraster et al., 2018; Gui et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Pyko et al., 2017, 2015; van Kempen et al., 2017; Wallas et al., 2019). In the present study we found clear positive relationships between perceived traffic noise in the bedroom and all used obesity markers (WC, BMI, being overweight, obesity, and abdominal obesity), however, only for women. For men, there were no associations, or they were rather opposite. These results are like the findings of Li et al. (2021), who measured nocturnal traffic noise in the bedroom for a week, and found that higher noise exposure increases the BMI among women, but not among men. Furthermore, several other previous studies with different noise exposure metrics (perceived or modelled) have found statistically significant associations between traffic noise and different obesity markers, mainly among women (Foraster et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2020; Oftedal et al., 2015; Pyko et al., 2017, 2015). Further research should be undertaken to confirm the possible important effect modification by sex and to find a pathophysiological explanation for this phenomenon.
The results of our study demonstrate the importance of nocturnal traffic noise in the development of obesity or being overweight. It has been suggested that the intermittent nature of nocturnal road traffic is disturbing to sleep continuity (Sanok et al., 2022). It can lead to sleep disturbance and deprivation, which in turn can lead to obesity (Basner et al., 2014; Koren and Taveras, 2018; Lin et al., 2020; Zaharna and Guilleminault, 2010). Earlier studies in the same RHINE III cohort found that traffic noise was strongly associated with insomnia symptoms (difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and with early morning awakenings) (Janson et al., 2020) and daytime sleepiness and habitual snoring (Gislason et al., 2016). Basner et al. (2014) has shown that nocturnal noise exposure can lead to obesity without perceived sleep disturbance through stress reactions, as a stress response during sleep has been observed starting from very low noise levels and chronic stress has been suggested to contribute to obesity (Bose et al., 2009).
One of the main limitations of the current study is the self-reported noise exposure data, that might have resulted in some reporting biases. For instance, in study of (Birk et al., 2011), the reported road traffic noise annoyance was compared with modelled exposure and only a fair association between them was found (Spearman correlation rs = 0.37). However, noise modelling is usually done for the street-side façade of the building at 4 m height, not considering the specific location of each respondent in a building (e.g., street vs back-yard side, exact floor etc.)(The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union, 2002). In present study we did not ask if the participant is annoyed/disturbed by traffic noise, but just if he/she can hear it. This way of forming the question may have reduced the reporting biases.
However, the reporting of hearing noise in the bedroom can be affected by the subjective noise sensitivity of participants. Previous studies have shown that for similar exposure levels, noise sensitive individuals tend to report more annoyance than non-sensitive individuals (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018). Taking this fact into account, self-reported noise measures could be a better indicator for annoyance among noise-sensitive people than purely modelled levels (Gong et al., 2022). In the current study, there was no evaluation of the participant’s noise sensitivity, but the interpretation of answers to two different questions can give some information about noise sensitivity. In general, betas and ORs were higher for women who reported noise hearing in the bedroom compared to women who reported a bedroom location nearby a street or reported both noise exposure metrics at the same time. This could reflect the possible effect modification of noise sensitivity, which is consistent with the findings of Oftedal et al (2015), who found associations between modeled levels of road traffic noise and obesity markers (BMI and WC) only among noise sensitive women. In this light, the findings of present study – that show an increase of WC by 4.66 cm and BMI by 1.35 kg/m2 if there is very much traffic noise in bedroom – are more relevant for noise sensitive women. In the present analysis with a more objective noise metric, window location nearby a street, the increase of WC was lower (2.22 cm). In the analysis where we used a combined noise indicator, the associations were smallest (WC by 0.67 cm and BMI by 0.31 kg/m2). We assume that the combined variable describes most realistic exposure situation in participants bedroom as it reduces over-reporting. Nnevertheless, current findings suggest that noise exposure might be a risk factor for adiposity also among non-sensitive women, but noise sensitivity can be an important effect modifier that increases the effect of road traffic noise.
Most of the studies that have examined the associations between traffic noise and adiposity, have used modeled noise levels at the most exposed façade of the buildings (Christensen et al., 2016, 2015; Oftedal et al., 2015; Pyko et al., 2017, 2015), but as discussed earlier, the exposure assessment created using indoor self-reported data can also provide some advantages over modeled traffic noise exposure assessments. Studies with modeled noise levels have objective data for time-average outdoor traffic noise, but it remains unclear how much all participants can actually hear the noise, as it depends from noise insulation of the building, in which floor the participant lives, the bedroom’s location toward a street, exposure time etc. For example, in Norway facade insulation reduced the proportion of respondents highly annoyed by traffic noise from 43–15% (Amundsen et al., 2013). Self-reported data, although subjective, can give some information about indoor noise levels at each participant’s home and, therefore, confirm the evidence found in studies with modelled noise data.
Participants, who are exposed to higher levels of road traffic noise, are at the same time also exposed to higher levels of air pollution from road traffic as the source of both pollutions is the same. Presently, we used modelled NOX concentrations as traffic induced air pollution markers at the home addresses of participants. NOX has been shown to be an effective marker of local traffic pollution (Madsen et al., 2007). NOx is widely used in other studies focusing to traffic noise associations with adiposity (Cai et al., 2020; Foraster et al., 2018; Oftedal et al., 2015; Pyko et al., 2017, 2015). We saw higher than average NOX concentrations among participants who reported more noise in bedroom or bedroom window towards street with more traffic (Fig. S5 and S6). This association could be the indicator of the respective quality of noise reporting in the present study, as higher modeled NOX indicates a higher density of road traffic and should be correlated with higher noise levels from road traffic.
Our results suggest that road traffic noise has an effect on obesity/being overweight, independent of air pollution. In line with other studies (Cai et al., 2020; Foraster et al., 2018; Oftedal et al., 2015; Pyko et al., 2017, 2015), adjustments for the air quality indicator NOX did not change the positive association between noise exposure metrics and obesity markers. To our knowledge, there is no epidemiological evidence that associated the NOX with obesity in humans, but recently published studies indicate that another air quality indicator, particulate matter, could increase the risk of being overweight (Lin et al., 2022) and also have a confounding role in association between traffic noise and obesity (Cai et al., 2020). In the analyses of this paper we did not have available data on particulate matter, but this could be included in future studies. Another limitation of our study is that we could not adjust for alcohol consumption, diet, income, ethnicity and mental status, which might have contributed to the risk of obesity. However, we were able to adjust for many other potential confounding factors, including physical activity, working status and education (that also indicate socioeconomic status), type of accommodation (detached house, terraced house or an apartment), and hours spent at home – data which are mostly missing in other studies. A strength of the study was its large multicenter randomly selected study population, which allowed us to also run stratified analysis. Nevertheless, as this is a cross-sectional study, a causal relationship cannot be confirmed.